8
We just want our transport woes to be fixed, say Penang folk
(www.freemalaysiatoday.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
You're projecting your own desires and willingness to accommodate the weather onto everybody else. Not even in Europe where biking is the most common, does everybody bike.
Wasn't that the original point of the article, to tax vehicles on the road so as to reduce the amount of traffic. Also, it works perfectly fine in public-transit-centric cities in Europe, not sure why you think it can't be done. Definitely higher hopes than getting everybody onto a bike.
This is a ridiculous argument when discussing systemic policy. It's certainly not an issue in any city that relies heavily on public transit.
Vehicles are already taxed 3-4 times when you purchase it (75-105% excise duty + 6%SST + stamp duty + CBU tax (if applicable)), once per annum for road tax (which scales up according to cc), introducing congestion charge is a bad idea and will only increase the cost of living for those that rely on it.
Also, have you considered that they have viable transport system with so many alternatives? I have travelled to Western Europe myself, the public transport there have already been fleshed out many decades ago. When I visited London and used their Tube, that system is more than 150 years old.... And these Penangites they want the government to emulate HK and Singapore, and again, their public transport is very complete which is why they could pull it off.
Introduce it when the public transport is complete, up and running so people have an option. At this point in time - it's just a bad policy.
The only city capable of pulling this off is KL, once the MRT3 is complete and running and they sort out kinks wrt last-mile solution. Penang? nah, wait for another 2 decades.
Just to chime in: not everyone can bike*. Public transportation should definitely have a variety of options, but bicycles are still a consumer-level option that can be encouraged by public infra design (just like cars are given preference in current design thinking), but it's not public transportation per se.
*I'm specifically saying this as a disability issue, but also to note ageing itself is a disability issue.
biking is definitely an option that could take the load off motor vehicles as well as public transport, also has the indirect effect of reducing burden on public health as it reduces reliance on healthcare.
But what all malaysian city need is better public transportation. People keep saying car is the enemy, but have they ever considered why people have to rely on cars in the first place?
Very much agree there. The other thing about bikes or any other solution inc rail will have to and is already having to contend with is the legacy of the car-focused urban landscape. Compare central KL that's built up pre-car with Petaling Jaya, Shah Alam, or the worst of them all (imo) Putrajaya. Even as you're switching to non-car options the distance you'll need to travel is ridiculous and does impact 1) public budgeting; 2) individual options (like bikes, and why I'm conscious of bicycling is an option that requires an able body and not to mention we'll need to consider electric options because the built up roads are not designed for human-powered options).
My personal opinion is that alongside all the investment in public transportation, we have to start moving urban planning into something like the fediverse (lmao just using the analogy of the day but I've been thinking on this awhile), having a conglomeration of satellite town and communities that people depend most on their daily life and work with the travel across communities to be an irregular situation. Travelling daily from Nilai just to work in Ampang should not be normalized for example. But that means the pattern of employment and work AND other things like schools etc needs to shift.
ETA: sorry derailed with all the Klang Valley examples! But I also think this is why Georgetown will have the best chance of success if it goes car-free. It's like central KL and old Taiping and Ipoh towns - it's designed for a time when human walkability and access must be considered so things are more compactly spaced. But it does means there's going to be a challenge if urban planning still prefers to keep that for business and tourism because that means the local govt just like KL would prefer for ppl to continue living in the satellite towns - that's the travel component that pushes ppl into thinking cars are more convenient
car-free is only possible if you have 1) forward-looking urban planning from the get-go 2) public transportation that support said urban planning. This unfortunately takes at least a decade or two.
Local governments are still very obsessed with approving super high-density buildings and never consider the amount of traffic that's going to cause and how people are going to move around.
re human walkability - construction of footpaths, building pedestrian crossings at every junction, and perhaps construct wombat crossings, shared-zone and enforced speed limit around populated area could also work which are all very easy to do with enough political will and should be the bare minimum.
I could also comment about the fact Federation of Malaysia is too centralised when it comes to planning, funding and construction of public infrastructure, including public transport. All the states are too dependent on Putrajaya for funding, which is tragic for local public transportation. It's very different compared to US or Australia whereby each state is free to pursue their own respective public transportation policy with minimal federal government input as they could raise significant tax revenue to fund their own projects.